Monomaniacs have infiltrated the gubment

[Ben Trovato]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html

[dave a]

On 5/25/2010 8:00 PM, Ben Trovato wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html
>

Investigating US Postal team from 1996-2004? What's the statute of
limitations on fraud? If it's seven years, they better hurry.

[Anton Berlin]

On May 25, 10:19*pm, dave a > wrote:
> On 5/25/2010 8:00 PM, Ben Trovato wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html
>
> Investigating US Postal team from 1996-2004? *What's the statute of
> limitations on fraud? *If it's seven years, they better hurry.

The SCA case was more recent - I was interviewed by SCA attorneys in
2004-05

[DA74]

On May 25, 8:00*pm, Ben Trovato > wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html

This is the kind of thing that should make these guys a little
nervous. A two year doping ban would be a walk in the park compared to
a federal fraud indictment. I wonder if a guy like Weisel would come
forward quickly and cut an immunity deal and give just enough
information to keep his anus intact.

[K. Fred Gauss]

DA74 wrote:
> On May 25, 8:00 pm, Ben Trovato > wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html
>
> This is the kind of thing that should make these guys a little
> nervous. A two year doping ban would be a walk in the park compared to
> a federal fraud indictment. I wonder if a guy like Weisel would come
> forward quickly and cut an immunity deal and give just enough
> information to keep his anus intact.

Add former team mates who might have a reason to be less than fully
satisfied with the way the team worked. Plus other riders who have
already been busted and have nothing to lose. Then there are wives,
employees and hangers-on of all the above. That's a lot of people they
could question.

Yes, they should be "a little nervous". They wont finish this
investigation up next week.

[Fredmaster of Brainerd]

On May 25, 9:27*pm, DA74 > wrote:
> On May 25, 8:00*pm, Ben Trovato > wrote:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html
>
> This is the kind of thing that should make these guys a little
> nervous. A two year doping ban would be a walk in the park compared to
> a federal fraud indictment. I wonder if a guy like Weisel would come
> forward quickly and cut an immunity deal and give just enough
> information to keep his anus intact.

It's interesting that the angle is defrauding sponsors
by doping in order to win races. Because, I suppose,
that decreases the sponsors' return on investment?

(Yeah, yeah I know it also says that the fraud angle
includes that they promised sponsors they were clean.
Surely every cycling team offers some lame public
assurance that they are clean. Is the next step also to
prosecute every Olympic athlete who took sponsorship
and gets popped? Even for pseudoephedrine?
I bet that what this really shows is that after BALCO,
Jeff Novitsky can't take on the NFL and has nothing
better to do.)

Fredmaster Ben

[DA74]

On May 25, 9:53*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> On May 25, 9:27*pm, DA74 > wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 8:00*pm, Ben Trovato > wrote:
>
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html
>
> > This is the kind of thing that should make these guys a little
> > nervous. A two year doping ban would be a walk in the park compared to
> > a federal fraud indictment. I wonder if a guy like Weisel would come
> > forward quickly and cut an immunity deal and give just enough
> > information to keep his anus intact.
>
> It's interesting that the angle is defrauding sponsors
> by doping in order to win races. *Because, I suppose,
> that decreases the sponsors' return on investment?
>
> (Yeah, yeah I know it also says that the fraud angle
> includes that they promised sponsors they were clean.
> Surely every cycling team offers some lame public
> assurance that they are clean. *Is the next step also to
> prosecute every Olympic athlete who took sponsorship
> and gets popped? *Even for pseudoephedrine?
> I bet that what this really shows is that after BALCO,
> Jeff Novitsky can't take on the NFL and has nothing
> better to do.)
>
> Fredmaster Ben

It's a great point. And I think that this tack may actually yield
results for the feds because it would appear that the riders aren't
being targeted. This would let the feds give the riders immunity and
maybe they'd be more willing to give up the goods and corroborate
Floyd's story to tighten the noose around Tailwind Sports (LA and
Weisel).

It's actually getting interesting.
-DA74

[DA74]

On May 25, 9:51*pm, "K. Fred Gauss"
> wrote:
> DA74 wrote:
> > On May 25, 8:00 pm, Ben Trovato > wrote:
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html
>
> > This is the kind of thing that should make these guys a little
> > nervous. A two year doping ban would be a walk in the park compared to
> > a federal fraud indictment. I wonder if a guy like Weisel would come
> > forward quickly and cut an immunity deal and give just enough
> > information to keep his anus intact.
>
> Add former team mates who might have a reason to be less than fully
> satisfied with the way the team worked. Plus other riders who have
> already been busted and have nothing to lose. Then there are wives,
> employees and hangers-on of all the above. That's a lot of people they
> could question.
>
> Yes, they should be "a little nervous". They wont finish this
> investigation up next week.

True. Sounds like there may be a whole bus load of witnesses too -
according to Floyd...

[Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.]

On May 25, 10:06*pm, DA74 > wrote:
> On May 25, 9:53*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 9:27*pm, DA74 > wrote:
>
> > > On May 25, 8:00*pm, Ben Trovato > wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html
>
> > > This is the kind of thing that should make these guys a little
> > > nervous. A two year doping ban would be a walk in the park compared to
> > > a federal fraud indictment. I wonder if a guy like Weisel would come
> > > forward quickly and cut an immunity deal and give just enough
> > > information to keep his anus intact.
>
> > It's interesting that the angle is defrauding sponsors
> > by doping in order to win races. *Because, I suppose,
> > that decreases the sponsors' return on investment?
>
> > (Yeah, yeah I know it also says that the fraud angle
> > includes that they promised sponsors they were clean.
> > Surely every cycling team offers some lame public
> > assurance that they are clean. *Is the next step also to
> > prosecute every Olympic athlete who took sponsorship
> > and gets popped? *Even for pseudoephedrine?
> > I bet that what this really shows is that after BALCO,
> > Jeff Novitsky can't take on the NFL and has nothing
> > better to do.)
>
> > Fredmaster Ben
>
> It's a great point. And I think that this tack may actually yield
> results for the feds because it would appear that the riders aren't
> being targeted.

<snip>



Dumbass -

It seems to me that riders who dope, win, and don't get caught
actually increase a sponsor's return on investment.

The riders who don't offer return on investment for a sponsor are the
ones who perform badly and get zero publicity.

thanks,

Fred. presented by Gringioni.

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

Ben Trovato wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html

The way this thing is unraveling, it seems like they want a bigger scope in
the process. Each new article seems to dig deeper and deeper peeling back
more layers of the onion. I'm not sure I want to see what is at the core,
might be too much to stomach.

[--D-y]

On May 26, 1:43*am, "GoneBeforeMyTime" > wrote:
> Ben Trovato wrote:
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html
>
> The way this thing is unraveling, it seems like they want a bigger scope in
> the process. Each new article seems to dig deeper and deeper peeling back
> more layers of the onion. I'm not sure I want to see what is at the core,
> might be too much to stomach.

????
It's like the Mitchell report. They're all doping, responsibility
starts at the top of any/all organizations concerned.

As long as the big money gets popped the hardest, what's the problem?
(Except for the stupidity-- I mean, this is just the cops going after
big names who are not going to shoot back)
--D-y

[Amit Ghosh]

On May 26, 12:27*am, DA74 > wrote:

>. I wonder if a guy like Weisel would come
> forward quickly and cut an immunity deal and give just enough
> information to keep his anus intact.

dumbass,

is this a lafferty fantasy ? a guy like wiesel will not enter the
picture.

[GoneBeforeMyTime]

--D-y wrote:
> On May 26, 1:43 am, "GoneBeforeMyTime" > wrote:
>> Ben Trovato wrote:
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html
>>
>> The way this thing is unraveling, it seems like they want a bigger
>> scope in the process. Each new article seems to dig deeper and
>> deeper peeling back more layers of the onion. I'm not sure I want to
>> see what is at the core, might be too much to stomach.
>
> ????
> It's like the Mitchell report. They're all doping, responsibility
> starts at the top of any/all organizations concerned.
>
> As long as the big money gets popped the hardest, what's the problem?
> (Except for the stupidity-- I mean, this is just the cops going after
> big names who are not going to shoot back)
> --D-y

I just want to know if Lance doped, but I have heard the Europeans fans
don't seem to care so much about this Landis-Armstrong fiasco.

[Ben Trovato]

On May 25, 9:53*pm, Fredmaster of Brainerd > wrote:
> On May 25, 9:27*pm, DA74 > wrote:
>
> > On May 25, 8:00*pm, Ben Trovato > wrote:
>
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/26/sports/cycling/26cycling.html
>
> > This is the kind of thing that should make these guys a little
> > nervous. A two year doping ban would be a walk in the park compared to
> > a federal fraud indictment. I wonder if a guy like Weisel would come
> > forward quickly and cut an immunity deal and give just enough
> > information to keep his anus intact.
>
> It's interesting that the angle is defrauding sponsors
> by doping in order to win races. *Because, I suppose,
> that decreases the sponsors' return on investment?
>
> (Yeah, yeah I know it also says that the fraud angle
> includes that they promised sponsors they were clean.
> Surely every cycling team offers some lame public
> assurance that they are clean. *Is the next step also to
> prosecute every Olympic athlete who took sponsorship
> and gets popped? *Even for pseudoephedrine?
> I bet that what this really shows is that after BALCO,
> Jeff Novitsky can't take on the NFL and has nothing
> better to do.)
>
> Fredmaster Ben

It looks as if "the authorities" referred to in the Times article are
pitching a lot of mud against the wall in the hope that something
might stick. Novitsky left the IRS for the Food and Drug
Administration in April of 2008; according to the New York Times, the
move allowed him to concentrate on distribution of banned substances.
So it's not clear how he's "directly involved" in a fraud case, beyond
getting his name in the press.

[Amit Ghosh]

On May 26, 10:58*am, --D-y > wrote:

> ????
> It's like the Mitchell report. They're all doping, responsibility
> starts at the top of any/all organizations concerned.
>

dumbass,

the mitchell report identified trainers and players and made
recommendations to the league and commisoner. it also didn't result in
any sanctions (certainly not against any team owner or management).

unlike your stance most riders who confess lately (kohl, frei, landis)
are willing to hold themselves accountable and not blame others.

[Amit Ghosh]

On May 26, 12:45*pm, "GoneBeforeMyTime" > wrote:

> I just want to know if Lance doped

dumbass,

if any more evidence is unearthed it will be circumstantial and will
probably not be any more damning than what is already known.

both the mitchell report and the balco case depended on leveraging the
fact that there were people charged with a crime and they chose to
talk in exchange for leniency.

lafferty will pull his hair out because there will not be a smoking
gun, just more circumstantial evidence and armstrong will still have
10,000 people show up to his twitter rides and have six-figure
speaking engagements.